January 28, 2013

Mr. Jindal posed the problem in a way that would, I believe, have been unthinkable for a leading Republican even a year ago. “We must not,” he declared, “be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.” After a campaign in which Mitt Romney denounced any attempt to talk about class divisions as an “attack on success,” this represents a major rhetorical shift.

There are 2 propositions: A. Those who are successful should be able to keep the fruits of their efforts, and B. All Americans should have the opportunity to work toward their own success.

Krugman comes close to saying Romney only said A and Jindal only says B.

But Romney continually said both things. His opponents worked constantly — and successfully — to make people feel that he was only saying A. And Jindal is also saying both things. That's the function of the word "simply."

Jindal — in the quoted sentence — isn't saying Romney only said A. He's talking about the way people think about the Republican Party, which is in A terms, because that's the way Democrats have successfully framed them. Jindal is saying the B frame is better political rhetoric.

Krugman goes on to explain why B rhetoric doesn't properly apply to what Jindal and the rest of the GOP are really doing. That is, he's continuing the process that was used so successfully in the campaign to defeat Romney — pushing A, obscuring B.

There is no major rhetorical shift. Not from Jindal and not from Krugman. Everyone is doing, rhetorically, what they've been doing all along.

There are 2 propositions — A and B — that relate to GOP policy. GOP proponents portray them as 2 sides of the same thing: The reason why A makes sense is that it's part of how B works. Opponents of the GOP de-link A and B and portray B as a trick to get people to vote for the party that's only about A.

2 questions for the GOP: 1. How can you truly be about B, with A as a subordinate proposition? and 2. Can you get people to believe that's what you are?

I think that democracy is fundamentally weak on the point of keeping the people from voting themselves not just golden eggs for breakfast, but roast goose for dinner.

Liberals think that it is unsustainable to add CO2 to the atmosphere indefinitely but there is no limit to what we can spend without relearning the hard lessons of the past and inflation.

Conservatives think that there is no limit to the amount of CO2 we can add to the atmosphere without bad consequences.

Both sides think that some magical transformative event will take place between now and doom, conservatives, fusion power, Krugman thinks that economy will take off regardless of the number of shackles are added for each new idea about social justice....

The Democrats don't just want to wage war on the rich. They also are waging war on lower and middle class white hetero men in a variety of ways ranging from their open borders stance to their hatred of traditional marriage and advocacy of gay marriage.

The open borders nonsense is an all out attack on low wage, low skill workers. The attack on traditional marriage and the advocacy of gay marriage is an all out attack on the traditional family.

What the Republican Party is doing now is testing the waters to see how publicly denouncing lower and middle class white hetero men will play.

As the prospective chump in this opera destined to be shit on by both sides, I've got no use for either side.

Liberals can't stand A, and they like B as long as it's wrapped up in their own ideas.

I heard a radio interview with Rob McKenna, two time AG of Washington State. He lost the governor's race by a hair (it's been democrat for nearly two generations).

He was talking about how he and Jindal are part of the Republican party that needs, and knows how to, be more 'socially liberal' to survive, and that they could offer direction to the party.

The 'numbers don't lie' is their argument.

The problem is conservative principles become ever further out of view, and much of the party and people who honor those principles won't even consider the deals that have to be made practically with Obama.

I have absolutely no hope left that that will change. The subprime mortgage scam was a bipartisan ripoff, probably the biggest Ponzi scheme in human history. The rascals from both parties who profited from it are still running the show.

This open borders bullshit is an all out attack on low wage, low skill workers and both parties are in on it.

Fuck them both. You're on your own boys. Expect nothing from these bastards except corruption. Republicans, Democrats... doesn't make a bit of difference.

Toys = Property. The protection of property from confiscatory taxation is the protection of liberty. Of course it's much easier to demagogue the rich and their toys if the problem to be solved is liberty. And too much liberty is always the problem to lefties like Krugman.

I was reading an article at NYT yesterday regarding pain meds and the FDA and DEA sticking their noses in again and making it even harder for those of us in chronic pain to manage that pain because some people will get a hold of said medications, use them to get "high", and become addicted.

One of the "solutions" a commenter came up with entailed taxing Big Pharma companies to make their meds less appealing to addicts, while also subsidizing Big Pharma companies to help them comply.

Tax them, then subsidize them so they can pay the taxes.

Of course, when you tax a company, the company builds those taxes into the prices. So they raise prices. Then, if you subsidize them so they can pay the taxes, the company, whose customers paid the taxes, now gets a refund of the taxes. And you can bet that refund doesn't make its way back to the customer. So customers pay the tax and the subsidy to the company and get absolutely nothing in return. Not even any benefit from the regulations or what the taxation was supposed to provide.

I have zero hope for any substantive change in the opinion of a US populace that cannot recognize and reject open corruption in an administration, despite having its face rubbed in it for four straight years.

I have zero hope for any substantive change in the opinion of a US populace that cannot recognize and reject open corruption in an administration, despite having its face rubbed in it for four straight years.

I'm disappointed but unsurprised at Krugman's strawmanning of the stance. You can go back to Regan, and back even further than that to see that the "A" and "B" notions are more than just "Republican", but is in fact an ingrained value for Americans in general, at least up until the last couple of decades and the growth of statist-centric thought.

As far as our blog hostess's question: I don't understand the question of how we can "truly be about B, with A as a subordinate position". To me, they go hand in hand as two sides to the same coin: All citizens should have the freedom to create their own success, and government best accomodates this by allowing them to keep the fruits of their labor. It seems to me to be nothing more than the simple logic of the free, non-centrist market that's made the US a 20th century economic giant going into the 21st century.

And as far as people believing that's what Republicans are: I don't know. I'd say that actions speak louder than words, and the prosperous years of seeing people build businesses succeed should be enough evidence for anyone. But obviously mere evidence is not enough for some people...

It defies the traditional religious belief that a child needs a father and a mother.

The white community (along with Asians) is the last holdout for religion, traditional family and marriage. The destruction of the traditional family is the lynchpin of the Democratic Party's hold on the black block vote. Welfare has been substituted for the authority of men.

When you get into this stupidity, the simplest things go over people's heads.

He was talking about how he and Jindal are part of the Republican party that needs, and knows how to, be more 'socially liberal' to survive, and that they could offer direction to the party.

I would like to have some of what he is smoking. Jindal is not, and does not know how to be, "socially liberal". He is staunchly pro-life, in favor of (and pushed through) vouchers for religious schools, thinks creationism should be taught in schools, and on and on.

He actually called his column "Makers, Takers, Fakers"? Before I read the rest of the post, and without ever reading his column, my immediate thought was: "Makers" (that's most Republicans), "Takers" (that's most Democrats), and "Fakers" (that's most of the press and what passes for an intelligentsia these days, including Krugman). Is he really unaware just how many readers put him in the "Fakers" category? That requires an extraordinary level self-deception.

If Republicana want to help people thrive, make it easier to start your own businesss and start with moonshine. One of the characters, Tim, on "Monnshiners" on Discovery TV wants to go legal. To do so, he must pay a $200,000 bond to the federal government.

WTF?

Plus, there are over 2,000 pages of federal regs. Micro breweries don't have to pay this. (I know this because a guy I work with is in the micro brewery business.)

This guy knows how to make moonshine. Let him make it legally, pay the taxes on it and earn a good living. We're all winners, not just the already rich that keep out competition with burdensome laws and regulaitons.

I still think Jindal was decrying Republicans saying stupid things that can be used against them by their opponents... while in the same breath saying stupid things that can be used against Republicans.

1.) Sorry, the "simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys" comes across as a criticism of the Republican status quo.

2.) Jindal makes no distinction between "toys" and the invested wealth necessary for economic growth.

3.) Americans don't need Republican to be "shown how they can thrive". They need Republican to change government policy so that American are allowed to thrive.

Ignore Paul's and Ann's attempts to respond to their supplied narratives. We learned from the first presidential debate, given the chance, people will respond positively to the Republican message. Use your own narrative, repeat it until Obama says 'I'm getting tired of hearing you say that', then, keep going. Do not cave to the left's demands to hear something else.

A little Alinsky wouldn't hurt either. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. And there is much on the left deserving of ridicule.

I think, Ann, that you are seeing an example of "The Narrative" at work.

The best explanation for "The Narrative" that I've seen was written by novelist Stephen Hunter. (It was brought to my attention by blogger Kevin Baker, in comments about fracking and the documentary FrackNation.)

You do not fight the narrative. The narrative will destroy you. The narrative is all-powerful. The narrative rules. It rules us, it rules Washington, it rules everything.--The narrative is the set of assumptions the press believes in, possibly without even knowing that it believes in them. It's so powerful because it's unconscious...It permeates their whole culture. They know, for example, that Bush is a moron and Obama is a saint. They know communism was a phony threat cooked up by right-wing cranks as a way to leverage power to the executive.... Cheney's a devil. Biden's a genius. Soft power good, hard power bad. Forgiveness excellent, punishment counterproductive, capital punishment a sin.--And the narrative is the bedrock of their culture, the keystone of their faith, the altar of their church. They don't even know they're true believers, because in theory they despise the true believer in anything. But they will absolutely de-frackin'-stroy anybody who makes them question that....

The narrative says that Republicans want to protect rich cronies and Democrats want to help the little guy, even when Republicans keep repeating rhetoric about giving everyone an opportunity to attempt to become rich.

Even when the policies of Democrats make it much harder for small businessmen to grow their business and wealth.

(Look for news stories about businesses wanting to remain below 50 full time employees, so that they aren't hurt by ObamaCare's regulations about providing health insurance for employees. Then ask how hard it is for a successful entrepreneur to become a millionaire when he doesn't want to grow his business from less-than-50-employees to 500-employees.)

The GOP is not dead. Obama and the Dems will offer real compromises on abortion in this term - maybe greater restrictions on federal funding, something like that. It will be tauted as a big victory (finally) for the GOP - they'll be rescued from the ash heap and Boehner will and Obama will enjoy a smoke togehter. It's not in anyone's interest to see a one-party government.

During discussions about tax policy, Republicans appear to care mostly about not raising taxes on the rich. This makes it easy for leftists to claim that Republicans only care about the rich. Republicans should find some pro-growth policies that don't sound so pro-rich.

“We can probably eliminate poverty on the planet earth in the next 50 years if we will just continue to follow the tenets of free enterprise capitalism to the greatest extent possible. So I just don’t want to see that change.”

During discussions about tax policy, Republicans appear to care mostly about not raising taxes on the rich. This makes it easy for leftists to claim that Republicans only care about the rich. Republicans should find some pro-growth policies that don't sound so pro-rich.

This is correct, but I don't really trust the press to get it right ... ever.

Someone tell edutcher that right now is an excellent time for the GOP to get compromise on an issue like abortion from the Dems. Not the least because we're starting to feel sorry for the GOPs self-mismanagement.

The GOP is stuck being the party of the guys who made it in past, or present, as owners of the Capitalistic bonanza. They are the winners who like the game just fine.

The Dems represent the new comers and the old working class who see themselves as non-owners, but want to join a party that wants them in its membership. They are the losers who want to change the outcome of the game.

Jindal is asking for the winners to accept the losers into full honorary membership.

But the political weather reports are that hell has not yet frozen over.

I don't understand why making moonshine is treated like making heroin or crank in the eyes of the law.

Love that show by the way. Season finale on Weds! Does Jeff get busted?

Amen to the first part. (It's all about money and taxes.) I'll be watching Wed. I'd like to make moonshine myself. Being from Tennessee originally, it's in my bones. I had a friend in college who was from Tellico Plains, TN, way up in the hills. He always brought moonshine to the parties and I always drank it.

While Krugman's work in economic geography is good, I don't consider it on a par with other work that won the prize. I believe he was awarded the prize more based on his support for Democrats and Obama, or anyone but Bush (in the eyes of Europeans).

This demonstrates the folly of thinking the GOP's problems have anything to do with who is talking "smart". We all want the smart and correct argument to win, but the sad truth is that it's irrelevant to elections. Even the facts have little effect against the liberal hegemony of the chattering classes. Krugman is exhibit A.

It appears the dreaded snitch may have done Jeff, Jim Tom, and Mark in, if they were transporting liquor.

What I don't get is why these guys would all show their faces and let everyone know what they're doing.

Yeah. I wonder how real the show is. Are they really making moonshine or just pretending to and all it is is water? I wouldn't show my face.

Tim's supposedly a fire chief where he lives. It's not like he's an obscure figure in his community.

Jim Tom's a hoot. Living my first 38 years in East Tennessee, I've known guys like most of those moonshiners. All those guys crack me up. Most of them, I'd see their lost twin at my high school reunion.

Someone tell edutcher that right now is an excellent time for the GOP to get compromise on an issue like abortion from the Dems. Not the least because we're starting to feel sorry for the GOPs self-mismanagement.

First, as I say, the Demos won't compromise on abortion any more than they will on entitlements.

Second, abortion is dropping in popularity (as it were). Ultrasound really put the lie to the "fetus" argument and women have had to deal with the fact they're killing a human being.

Why should the Rs compromise when things are swinging their way?

PS Spare me the mind games. phx was the one who was going all conciliatory the month before the election, remember?

(I'm willing to be he's one of those who agrees the election was stolen, he just won't say it)

Someone tell edutcher that right now is an excellent time for the GOP to get compromise on an issue like abortion from the Dems. Not the least because we're starting to feel sorry for the GOPs self-mismanagement.

First, as I say, the Demos won't compromise on abortion any more than they will on entitlements.

Second, abortion is dropping in popularity (as it were). Ultrasound really put the lie to the "fetus" argument and women have had to deal with the fact they're killing a human being.

Why should the Rs compromise when things are swinging their way?

PS Spare me the mind games. phx was the one who was going all conciliatory the month before the election, remember?

(I'm willing to be he's one of those who agrees the election was stolen, he just won't say it)

Someone could say "hey let's mint trillion dollar coins" and people would say "sure if you say it will work, and especially if you say it won't cost me anything, I'm all for it, and I'll vote for you."

“We must not,” he declared, “be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.”

With this comment, Jindal solidifies his position in the ranks of glib, opportunistic hacks like Obama and Christie.

I've been a Democrat or an Independent for forty years, and yet it is clear to me that Republican opposition to tax and spending increases have to do with something other than protecting the toys of the "well off."

The rhetoric of class warfare is not more appealing simply because it comes from a Republican.

I followed SJ's embedded link which after a couple click-thrus led me to this piece.http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/church-of-msm-and-new-reformation.htmlFantastic. A must read IMHO.Thanks SJ.

@POGOObama doesn't come across as fearful.He encourages his constituents to be fearful (fearful of individuals and institutions not under sufficient administrative control) and he presents himself as their protector. He presents his opponents as corrupt minions of those who benefit from the disorder that he is working to overcome.

We're feeling sorry for the GOP that still hangs on to Rush Limbaugh as its avatar.

The only people who claim Rush speaks for the GOP are libs like yourself.

Rush is a cheerleader for conservatism, not the Republican Party. He is harder on RINOs than he is on Democrats.

Why is Rush so popular? Because he has the balls to call out the Left on its bullshit. People on the Right have been crying out for the last 20 years for someone with enough guts not to kowtow to the leftist media narrative, but to talk over their heads straight to the American people.

Tin in vermont wrote: think that democracy is fundamentally weak on the point of keeping the people from voting themselves not just golden eggs for breakfast, but roast goose for dinner.

What total crap. Both parties will spend your money. The difference is that Republicans want to borrow and increase the debt to spend on tax cuts for the rich and endless senseless wars, while Democrats want to spend money on tax-as-you-spend domestic programs that will actually make the country stronger.

What total crap. Both parties will spend your money. The difference is that Republicans want to borrow and increase the debt to spend on tax cuts for the rich and endless senseless wars, while Democrats want to spend money on tax-as-you-spend domestic programs that will actually make the country stronger.

while Democrats want to spend money on tax-as-you-spend domestic programs that will actually make the country stronger.

Well the problem with comment is it isn't true. Obamas tax plan would have generated $1.6 trillion over ten years, or an additional $160 billion a year. Since we are currently spending over $1 trillion dollars more than we are taking in, it would seem the Democrats are fine with borrow and spend as well.

Re. question 2) "Never, as long as all they bother to listen to is Krugman and his ilk".

It astonishes me (and I'm an (I) with a strong (L) leaning) how often my (D)/(P) friends - as far as I can tell from their own utterances - get literally all of their news about the (R)s from (D) news sources.

Funny thing, that: It's almost like you don't get a clear view of something by viewing it only via its opposition.

(Ironically, of course, the same people all reflexively complain that Fox News* Isn't Honest.

Plainly, though, ThinkProgress and UpWorthy are totally fair-minded.

* Which I never, ever look at - making it doubly amusing when someone tries to pull the "that's just because all you get your news from is FOX!" card. Which has, sadly, happened more than once on the Interwebs.)

rehajm and SJ who mentioned the narrative at 10:01 make good points. And what EDH said at 9:58 is good as well:

I still think Jindal was decrying Republicans saying stupid things that can be used against them by their opponents... while in the same breath saying stupid things that can be used against Republicans.

This is how the GOP is the stupid party: One of the purported stars of the party is dopey enough to use the lefty narrative to describe his party. Did he really mean to say that one of the GOP party objectives is to protect the rich so that they can keep their toys, or did he mean to say that they are perceived that way and they need to change that perception?

There is a big difference between being a party that is for lower taxation in order to stimulate economic growth, which as an end result, allows the rich get to keep their toys, and being the party whose stated objective is that the rich get to keep their toys; the latter point being how Krugman and the majority of Americans will interpret what Jindal said.

The GOP need to prove to the majority that the accepted narrative about them is wrong. If, however, they themselves embrace the narrative, and cannot articulate what they stand for beyond that narrative-- which implies to tentative supporters that they currently stand for nothing-- then they deserve to lose.

Republicans failed pretty badly to show they were a Party the workers could see as championing them vs. the "Hero Jobs Creators" and the "Small business owners" - who, small though they may be, are still the bosses and not all workers in small businesses regard the owner as a beneficent leige lord.

Nor do Republicans get the common sense wisdom in the population that most are not destined to become rich Hero Jobs Creators or small business owners making millions eventually from their present station as Junior high teachers, diesel mechanics, secretaries, store clerks, and the guy in accounting on the 3rd floor.

Republicans offered pie in the sky Horatio Alger myths the last 20 years just at a time when Globalization and Free Trade has crippled economic growth. People don't want grandiose dreams of their future owner-executive status "if they just work hard and love their bosses". They want life better in what they are doing now.

Republicans lost much of the middle class in their focus on CEO-owner worship, Religious Right social values, and kowtowing to the Elites.

The ancient Greeks had it right. Those who seek high office should be, ipso facto, disqualified therefrom.Hold a lottery. Toss a dart at a phone book page. Grab a passerby in the mall. That would yield a better candidate.

The ancient Greeks had it right. Those who seek high office should be, ipso facto, disqualified therefrom.Hold a lottery. Toss a dart at a phone book page. Grab a passerby in the mall. That would yield a better candidate.

----Republicans offered pie in the sky Horatio Alger myths the last 20 years just at a time when Globalization and Free Trade has crippled economic growth. People don't want grandiose dreams of their future owner-executive status ====

We are much more likely to meet the challenges of Globalization and Free Trade if we inspire the dreams of the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, self made man and don't through a ton of red tape on him or her. Obama wants to stamp out all those dreams and provide food stamps in their place.